Joyce MurrayLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Madam Speaker, on April 9, the Indian Residential School History and Dialogue Centre opened at UBC. President Santa Ono spoke and apologized for UBC's role in that unfortunate educational system. Musqueam elders were present to talk about the long-term impacts that passed from generation to generation.

Could you tell us what impact the apology you are calling for would have on the children and grandchildren of residential school survivors?

Madam Speaker, I was thinking of Edmund Metatawabin. I read his words this morning. Edmund has been a leader in trying to get justice for St. Anne's for so long. He said, “Sometimes you have to say sorry many times for what was done.” There is nothing wrong with that. Our Catholic faith teaches us that. We are taught that we have to say sorry. Angela Shisheesh says, “You have to say sorry before you go to bed.” Saying sorry is not something onerous.

What it means, though, is that we have to send a clear message that the church understands. All of us were shocked when we read the Pope's comments that he was not going to apologize. There was a misunderstanding that he somehow did not respect the need. That is a result of the bishops not asking him. That is why it is important for us to reach out to the Pope directly. It would be a powerful moment for Canada if the Parliament of this country asked the Pope to listen and respond. That would be powerful, because apologies matter.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the important work we are doing today in the House.

My granny went to a residential school from the time she was four until she was 16. My husband also went to a residential school for many years.

What I find compelling is the generosity of our children. What I mean by that is that when I look at the realities my granny and my father faced, as well as my husband, I find that my children have been so generous, especially to their father, because of the gaps he has, as he was not parented in the proper way.

When I think of this apology and what it would mean, not only for the people who lived this experience, I agree that we cannot say sorry enough. We must make room, because all Canadians have to carry this story. We have asked indigenous people to carry this story alone for much too long. Everybody who needs to say sorry should say it so that everyone carries it.

I would ask the member to share with us how this apology would help the children who survived so much because their parents did not know. We are learning with them how to be parents. How would an apology change their lives?

This is about the grandchildren. This is not about yesterday and old history. This is about today.

Edmund Metatawabin, who has been such a teacher to me on this, said that money is like ice in the pockets. The St. Anne survivors have been calling for justice for their grandchildren. They want them to carry on, and the children have been so good. Not just parents and grandparents, but families were deliberately targeted and devastated by the policies. One survivor told me about her parents, and she said that the use of the electric chair was to destroy their ability to love. Who would do that? Looking at her and looking at her children, I can see that they are full of hope and love.

That is why what is said is so important. This is about the children. It is about us going forward. We can never repair the damage that was deliberately done, but we can start on this road.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to rise today and speak to the motion from the member for Timmins—James Bay. I acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for bringing this important motion before the House of Commons. I am pleased to have worked co-operatively with him on some of the language. As always, we also want to thank the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for his ongoing support of and advocacy for the survivors of residential schools.

Our government also wants to take this opportunity to show that reconciliation is not a partisan issue.

This motion reflects the previous and ongoing actions of the government on the three broad issues it addresses, and we will, therefore, be supporting it.

The residential school system was a systemic plan to remove indigenous children from their homes, families, and cultures, and to facilitate the stated policy of “killing the Indian in the child”. Students endured unconscionable physical and mental abuse, and generations of indigenous peoples were left emotionally scarred and culturally isolated.

Over a period of more than a century, an estimated 150,000 indigenous children attended those schools, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission estimates that at least 6,000 died. This calculated act of cultural genocide inflicted unimaginable long-term harm on the indigenous children who were forced to attend these schools, and created severe intergenerational trauma that indigenous communities and our country continue to confront.

This shameful part of our collective history spanned seven generations, many governments, and different political parties. I did not know when I was first elected to this House in 1997 that the last residential school had closed only in 1996. Healing the damage of residential schools would require the sustained action not only of involved governments and organizations, but of all Canadians. We must all continue to work toward educating ourselves about this dark chapter in Canadian history.

The work of the TRC has opened the eyes of many Canadians to the horrific truth of residential schools, but we now have so many new resources to teach us. For example, the truly important book Indian Horse, by the late Richard Wagamese, is something every Canadian should read, and it is now a film that every Canadian should see. It is the heart-wrenching account of the horrific abuse and its consequences.

Reconciliation is not an indigenous issue or a partisan issue. It is an issue that affects all Canadians.

In May 2005, the then justice minister Irwin Cotler appointed former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci to move the resolution of residential school legacy from the courtroom to the negotiating table. With good will from all sides, an agreement in principle was reached in November 2005 and signed by all parties.

This agreement in principle set out all the significant components of the settlement, including compensation for the survivors, commemoration of these tragic events, and the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The final agreement was concluded in 2006 by the Conservative government, and was subsequently ratified by the courts.

The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement is the largest class action settlement in Canadian history. It was signed by all parties following negotiations by representatives for Canada, former students, churches, the Assembly of First Nations, and Inuit representatives to resolve thousands of individual claims brought by former students across Canada.

In moving forward in the spirit of reconciliation, we need to ask forgiveness for past wrongs and acknowledge our mistakes.

Our indigenous partners and the survivors have also emphasized how important an apology can be to a renewed relationship.

When Prime Minister Harper apologized to residential school survivors on behalf of all Canadians right here in this chamber in 2008, it represented an essential step on the path toward healing the intergenerational wounds of these appalling historic wrongs.

The power of an apology can be profound. It is not only the acknowledgement of a past wrong, but often the first step toward healing and closure for those who were impacted. It is so much more than resolving legal liabilities or following the articles of an agreement. It is about providing those who have been hurt with the words they need to hear in order to forgive.

In 2006, I had the honour of apologizing on behalf of the Government of Canada to the Sayisi Dene for the government's role in forcibly relocating their community 60 years ago, a forced relocation that caused death, hardship, and devastation. It was truly poignant in Tadoule Lake, in Churchill, and in Winnipeg. The survivors heard the words they had negotiated in order for the apology to be part of their healing journey and closure.

In 2017, the Prime Minister delivered an official apology on behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians to the former students of Newfoundland and Labrador residential schools and their families. At an emotional gathering in Newfoundland and Labrador, he acknowledged the suffering and intergenerational trauma of those who had attended the schools, and their descendants.

One month ago, here in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister exonerated six Tsilhqot'in chiefs who had been wrongly executed 150 years ago.

The current leaders who were on the floor of the House to hear the apology expressed to me the deep impact of that long overdue acknowledgement on the members of their community.

This was also true in 2010 when Pope Benedict apologized to Irish victims of sexual abuse, and in 2015 when Pope Francis apologized in Bolivia to the indigenous peoples of the Americas for the grave sins of colonialism. In both of these admiral examples, the Catholic Church was on the right side of history.

It is in that context the Prime Minister formally requested an apology when he met Pope Francis at the Vatican last year. The Prime Minister said, “ I told him about how important it is for Canadians that we move forward on real reconciliation with indigenous peoples and highlighted how he could help by issuing an apology.”

I have witnessed the deep hurt the survivors and families are feeling as a result of the decision not to issue a papal apology, particularly the many indigenous people who are devout Catholics.

Call to action 58 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission states:

We call upon the Pope to issue an apology to Survivors, their families, and communities for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children in Catholic-run residential schools. We call for that apology to be similar to the 2010 apology issued to Irish victims of abuse and to occur within one year of the issuing of this Report and to be delivered by the Pope in Canada.

Our government continues to believe an apology from the Pope on behalf of the Catholic Church to survivors of the horrors of Canadian residential schools is an important step in acknowledging the past and moving toward reconciliation.

As Grand Chief Willie Littlechild, a former TRC commissioner and himself a survivor of three residential schools, has said:

It will give survivors that expression of regret. They want the Pope to say “I'm sorry”....

I hope it will happen. It gives people the opportunity to forgive, and that's important too. Many survivors will feel a sense of justice and reconciliation.

I am committed to continuing work with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, our indigenous partners, and the survivors on this shared journey of reconciliation. I have written to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and offered to help facilitate a meeting between the CCCB and survivors to personally hear what an apology would mean to them and how crucial it is to reconciliation in Canada. I am hopeful that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is seized with the issue of the apology and will undertake further outreach to communities, but an apology alone will not fix the harms of the past.

Today's motion reflects that.

The second part of the motion calls upon the Canadian Catholic Church to live up to its moral obligation and the spirit of the 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and resume best efforts to raise the full amount of the agreed upon funds

Pursuant to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, the Catholic entities had three financial obligations: one, make a cash contribution of $29 million; two, provide in-kind services worth $25 million; and three, use best efforts to raise $25 million to support healing and reconciliation programs. While the Catholic entities have met the first two financial obligations, they have raised only $3.7 million of the $25 million to support the healing and reconciliation programs that are necessary.

In response to a court decision releasing the church of further legal liability, the previous government initiated further negotiations with the Catholic entities in the summer of 2015.

These discussions led to an agreement signed on October 30, five days before the current government came into power. This agreement released them from all additional legal responsibilities.

While the government acknowledges the Catholic entities no longer have a legal obligation to raise the balance of the committed funds for healing and reconciliation programs, we believe they still have a moral obligation to fulfill the spirit of the settlement agreement. All parties to the settlement agreement have a critical role to play in renewing the relationship with indigenous peoples in Canada. Since 2016, our government and I have publicly urged the Catholic entities to resume fundraising efforts to meet those moral obligations, and we will continue to do so.

The last component of today's motion calls on the Catholic entities “to make a consistent and sustained effort to turn over relevant documents when called upon by survivors of residential schools, their families, and scholars working to understand the full scope of the horrors of the residential school system in the interest of truth and reconciliation.”

There is a body of documents related to residential schools litigation which predates the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Some of these documents are subject to a legal restriction called “settlement privilege”, which renders them confidential.

In a number of rulings, the court has confirmed that the documents in question are subject to settlement privilege.

In order to have these documents, at the request of the residential school survivors, placed in the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, all the involved parties must waive settlement privilege. Our government recognizes the importance of preserving the truth-telling of the survivors, while acknowledging an obligation to respect directions provided under agreements and to protect survivors' privacy rights. In January 2018, I wrote to the head of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation confirming that Canada waives privilege over these protected documents so that a survivor's wish to share and preserve his or her story with the centre can be respected. I also wrote to the Catholic Church strongly encouraging it to do the same.

We must never let this dark, painful chapter of history be forgotten.

As I said earlier, and as I will keep saying, reconciliation is not only an indigenous issue, it is a Canadian imperative. It is not up to the federal government alone to advance this journey. We all have our own roles to play. All hon. members in this House have an opportunity now to demonstrate their commitment to reconciliation by supporting this motion.

This motion does not ask the church to do anything the government has not already done itself. It is not about the church versus the government. This is about doing what is best for residential school survivors and helping them along the healing journey.

Madam Speaker, I have enormous respect for the minister and her work, and I was so pleased that she was talking about the construction of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and the importance that this is more than legal liabilities or following the wording of an agreement.

We have unfinished business, as my hon. colleague knows, which is the need to address what happened with the St. Anne's residential school survivors. It was the decision of the justice department to suppress the evidence that upended the hearings which resulted in the hearings being thrown out. There was evidence of horrific crimes, yet our survivors continue to go to the Ontario Superior Court and to the B.C. Superior Court to face every possible legal roadblock one could imagine. Some of them did not even have bus fare to go to the hearings.

The issue today is I am asking the minister to meet with the survivors. I am asking that we put the goddamn lawyers to the side. We can reach out. The survivors are not here for anything more than just healing. I am asking the minister to sit down and meet with survivors like Angela Shisheesh and Evelyn Korkmaz, and all the survivors who come time and time again.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his heartfelt words and ongoing advocacy.

Our government is committed to justice for all of the Indian residential school survivors. It is important and I look forward to meeting with these survivors.

We know that we must maintain the integrity of the settlement agreement for the sake of all other survivors. We want to work to make sure that all of the claimants get all of the assistance and support that they can in terms of their seeking of justice and support, particularly around language, culture, and healing, which are so important to so many of the survivors and are not easy for them to achieve.

As the member knows, 95% of the claimants from St. Anne's have received compensation and we are working with the others to do what we can. The courts have shown us that we have kept our promise and continue to keep our promise, but we know we can do more.

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to serve with the minister when she was a member of the aboriginal affairs committee in the last Parliament and I was the parliamentary secretary. As she mentioned, one of the proudest moments for me as a Conservative was the June 2008 apology by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. My father was the Indian affairs minister at the time, and I know that was one of the crowning achievements of his distinguished career as a parliamentarian.

In my community, I have worked with local indigenous communities on reconciliation. What I have learned from them is that reconciliation is not something that we will arrive at; we will not one day say that we are finally reconciled. It is an ongoing journey.

I think there are some who believe the apologies happened here in Parliament, so why have we not arrived there yet. Perhaps the minister could share with the House her views on reconciliation and how we as a nation and as individuals need to continue on that journey together.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I remember that day very well. It is a day that those of us who were here will never forget. There is not a week that goes by when someone does not stop us to say they brought their mother here or they were watching it from the community hall on television, and that the apology from the Government of Canada meant so much.

I too believe that reconciliation is a journey, not a destination, and that we, as Canada, will continue to have to be corrected on our journey of reconciliation.

I think the motion today means that Canada has apologized. The other churches have apologized. The reason the Truth and Reconciliation Commission put out a call to action asking the Pope to apologize is that the Catholic entities have not. It is hugely important that we move on to allow the kind of healing and closure that is, as was said, particularly for the indigenous people in this country who are devout Catholics. They want their church to do better, to be able to apologize so that they can get on with their lives, their healing journey, and their closure.

Adam VaughanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question of the minister, I just want to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for the beautiful angry words that are impossible not to respond to. It is a good day in Parliament when our hearts and our minds are open to new possibilities.

From a personal perspective, and I have seen it in practice, the minister has led many of us to put away the titles of MP, of minister, of lawyer, of bureaucrat, and has asked us as members of this caucus and Parliament to sit and bear witness to history as part of the process of truth and reconciliation. I am wondering what her thoughts are on not just meeting herself with those who may be on Parliament Hill today with this lived experience but for the church itself to put aside its robes, its institutions, its doctrine, and its lawyers and sit down face to face to understand the legacy of what went wrong and the systemic nature of what went wrong. What advice would she give to those members of the church to bear witness to these truths as part of their process of reconciliation? How would she advise going about that?

Madam Speaker, in hearing the stories of what happened to real people, we are changed forever. That is the reason we have now sent a letter to the bishops to ask them to meet with survivors. Correspondence is not going to change the way people feel in the same way a face-to-face meeting would, as the member said. Hearing those stories directly can change people's lives. It was horrific.

I hope that whatever decisions the lawyers take, and how they take those decisions, as so many Catholic churches have done coast to coast to coast to do their part in reconciliation—

Madam Speaker, I want to say this clearly and simply so we understand each other. Stella Chapman had her case taken all the way to the B.C. Superior Court to be told the rights to procedural fairness do not exist. Those are legal obstructions. Therefore, will the minister commit to a meeting with Edmund Metatawabin and the survivors of St. Anne's so that we can sit down and find a way through this?

We need to find a settlement. Edmund talks about this being about the children, about putting a plan in place. I am asking for a very clear and simple answer.

I just want to remind members to try to reduce their preamble and go directly to the question as quickly as possible. In the 10-minute spot, we should have enough time for at least five questions, and I had to squeeze four out of there. I just wanted to remind members.

I know this is a very important topic as well as a very emotional one. I just want to try to move things along so that everybody who wants to participate can do so.

Madam Speaker, I want to build on the comments of the member for Timmins—James Bay, thank him for bringing this important issue to the floor today, and build on the comments that were made by the minister. I also want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

I am standing today to support this NDP motion, and toward the end of my comments I will talk about the specific components of it. What I am hoping to do is share what was a personal journey. Hopefully that will create a better understanding of why our government's apology in 2008 was so important and why a papal apology will also matter.

Some people say that Parliament is asking for an apology and that apologies should come from the heart. Absolutely, apologies should come from the heart, and they can come often. I am hoping that the debate in the House today will be part of what is heard in terms of the decision the Pope will ultimately make.

I also know that we need to respect the independence of religious organizations and their activities; however, I want to note that this is an invitation and an expression of how Parliament feels. An invitation is very different from a direction.

I know we have many survivors from St. Anne's and I want to acknowledge what they have gone through and how connected and troublesome their pasts and histories have been. I think it is important that my comments are going out to the people who perhaps do not understand very intimately what has happened to the survivors and who perhaps have a more limited understanding of the issue.

Like many of us in Canada, I grew up in a suburban middle-class community. As with many new Canadians, our understanding of indigenous culture and the history of the residential schools was extraordinarily limited. To be frank, back in those days, a university education did little to enhance awareness.

This all changed for me when, as a young nurse of 26 or 27 years old, I was hired in a large first nations community in British Columbia. I look back at that time now as a very unique and intimate privilege that I had when I spent three years as part of that community.

Over those three years, there were many conversations. I want to do a big shout-out to the community health representatives, the NNADAP workers, the court workers, and all those who took me under their wing and wanted to ensure that I understood first-hand not only how the residential school impacted their lives but also how ongoing government policy was so destructive for their people and their community. They knew that for me to do my job effectively, I had to understand their history.

This was 35 years ago, and this conversation was certainly not happening in the broader Canadian public. It is very sad that it has taken so long for us to have these conversations that have been had in the last number of years.

The reason I say it was a unique time is that in the 1980s, the elders of that community had not attended residential schools. As a nurse I was part of the community, and there were four generations. One of the jobs was to visit the elders at their homes to check on their medications. Typically they were working in their large gardens, were off at fish camps, berry-picking, or creating beautiful baskets with the cedar roots that they had dug for, but underlying that there was a deep sadness and a concern.

The concern was for their children who had not come home and for what they saw in their children who had come home and who seemed to be caught in a bit of a vicious and destructive cycle. This was the first generation of children who had been sent away to school.

I always remember the drug and alcohol worker, the NNADAP worker, who talked about his experiences. He talked about how he came home and got lost in alcohol abuse for many years. He talked about how it impacted his children. He talked about how he got sober and then committed his life to helping people deal with their addictions and their pain.

He also had to live with not having provided parenting for his own children, and the loss of some of his children in his life. Then, of course, we had the children's children.

With that experience, I got to witness the magic of the dancing to drums, listening to the stories in the moonlight by the fire, the whole community gathering to support the families after the death of a loved one, many feasts, and also being mercilessly teased for my ineptness with the dabber and bingo sheets. However, this was also a community in pain. On the darker side, in the first week I was there, there were three suicides. I remember clearly the day when three gentlemen went out in a boat; they tipped, and their lives were lost. There was hopelessness, poverty, unemployment, addiction, and overcrowding, and the residential school was very clearly the source of so much pain for that generation and for the generation before them and the generations that came afterward.

What we have today is a motion that contains three parts. One is to invite an apology. It has been said already today that sometimes an apology has to come in many forms. One of my colleagues said to me that if he did something terribly wrong and said “sorry” to my wife, and she said a week later, “This is still bothering me. We need to talk about how we can make this better”, that relationship is important to him and he would make sure he continued to work toward that relationship and that apology. I see this as being very similar. We need to recognize that it is important.

There are the other two components of the motion, which have been talked about.

Again, what I am saying is focused for the people who might be listening today who do not understand the issue as well as the survivors do. Not everyone can take three years, but I challenge anyone who might be listening and who does not understand the situation to read one of the many books, such as The Education of Augie Merasty or They Called Me Number One. They should go to see the movie Indian Horse, which was recently released. The author, Richard Wagamese, is from my riding. They should attend a powwow or national aboriginal day.

Let us all commit to a better understanding and the continued hard work of reconciliation.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, for whom I have enormous respect. We worked so well together over the years.

I want to talk about this being bigger than parties. The minister alluded to it. This is a history of Canada, and everyone has had their part to play.

I want to go back to my remembrance of the apology in Parliament. Being of Scottish background, we have a policy of only crying over battles we lost 300 years ago, and the Leafs. However, I wept when I heard Prime Minister Stephen Harper give that apology. It was such a moving moment, because Parliament was changed that day. Prime Minister Harper thanked Jack Layton for working with the Conservatives to find a way to make this not just an official parliamentary thing but an act of respect for the elders and leaders who came right into Parliament, into the people's House, so he could give that apology directly.

Does my colleague feel we are carrying on that tradition today—that for all the wrong that was done, Parliament is trying now to find a way forward together?

Madam Speaker, to have the opportunity to truly understand the issue, the pain of the residential schools and the destruction it caused for too many families and communities, we need to look at how we can move forward together. There are many ways. Certainly the apology and the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as we talked about, are things we are all very proud of.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the previous speakers and thank the hon. member for her eloquence on this file. It really is a good day for Parliament when we can discuss matters of such importance and sensitivity. The member for Timmins—James Bay is to commended for bringing this motion forward.

The key issue here is the request for an apology. An apology, by definition, means a sincere request in connection with an offence that has been committed. For whatever reason, the Catholic Church has chosen not to apologize. At the end of the day, regardless of this motion, presumably it will still not have apologized. I wonder whether the hon. member cares to reflect on the state of affairs if there is either no apology or an apology that may be something less than sincere.

Madam Speaker, of course, none of us can speculate on what will come from today's motion. However, I think apologies need to come from the heart. They need to matter.

The Prime Minister has asked for an apology. Some of my colleagues have expressed concerns. They believe that an apology should be offered, but should Parliament even have to ask that question? That is a reasonable comment, and I think the issue of it coming from the heart is absolutely critical.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her leadership in our caucus and in our movement on this file. I want to recommend to parliamentarians as well a book called Stolen from our Embrace, written by Chief Ernie Crey, from my riding. He was a survivor himself and lost one of his sisters on the Pickton farm as part of that cycle of despair that came out of the residential schools.

I want the member to talk about the intergenerational nature of this. This was not something that ended a while ago and is not still having an impact. Perhaps she can touch on how this is still impacting communities today.

Madam Speaker, having had the extraordinary privilege of sitting down with elders who did not attend residential schools and then witnessed three generations that came after that suffered the enormous impact, I think it is going to be an extreme challenge for us to continue to do this very important work to help communities heal.

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking our colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, for her eloquent words on this matter and for sharing her personal story in connection with this important issue. I would like to thank as well the member for Timmins—James Bay for bringing forward this motion today and giving this House the opportunity to debate this important matter.

As Canadians, we rightly have much to be proud of. We have a proud history and a great record of accomplishments, whether they be in the military, science, technology, sports, or medicine. However, while we celebrate our successes as a nation, we must also recognize and acknowledge the times we have failed. During our history, we have done wrong. The institutions established by past governments were responsible for great harm and great pain, and it is for this reason that I will be supporting the motion brought forward today by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

The residential schools were a horrific, dark mark and chapter in our Canadian history. The numbers themselves are appalling. One hundred and fifty thousand first nations, Inuit, and Métis children were removed from their homes, removed from their communities, and forced to attend these schools, and thousands of them died.

In 2008, in this place, Prime Minister Stephen Harper officially apologized for the Government of Canada's role in the Indian residential schools. At that time, he said:

The Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes and often taken far from their communities.

Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed. All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities.

First nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools.

Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools, and others never returned home [again].

I was struck by the comment about the languages. I have the privilege of serving as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. We are currently undertaking a study of the use of indigenous languages in this place, and it was interesting to hear testimony from different witnesses about indigenous languages and their vitality in the current age. According to UNESCO, from one of the witnesses who appeared before us, of the 90 indigenous languages it surveyed, 23 were deemed to be vulnerable, five were definitely endangered, 27 were severely endangered, and 35 indigenous languages were critically endangered. Much of this endangerment to these languages stems from the fact that so many indigenous children were prohibited from using their languages after they were sent away to residential schools. This was wrong, and it was acknowledged that it was wrong in 2008 when the official apology was issued.

In 2007, the former Conservative government established a truth and reconciliation process and a commission as part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, and it recognized that the Indian residential school system had a profound, lasting, and damaging impact on so many aspects of indigenous culture, heritage, and language.

In 2015, the commission released its report, entitled “What We Have Learned: Principles of Truth and Reconciliation”. In this report, the commission outlined a number of principles of reconciliation. It is pertinent to the debate today to highlight a couple of those principles of reconciliation. The report states:

Reconciliation is a process of healing of relationships that requires public truth sharing, apology, and commemoration that acknowledge and redress past harms.

The commission goes on to state, in point 10, that:

Reconciliation requires sustained public education and dialogue, including youth engagement, about the history and legacy of residential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal rights, as well as the historical and contemporary contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canadian society.

I hope that today's debate will contribute to that reconciliation.

I would note that efforts at reconciliation happen across our country. In my community of Perth—Wellington last summer, Stratford Summer Music , a great cultural institution in our riding, highlighted some of the indigenous musical and cultural practices that are so important, and it was able to share that with so many in our community. I thank the organizers for taking that important step.

Today's motion is divided into three key points. The first part of the motion is that the Pope be invited to participate in the journey. As we have already heard so many times this morning, this is a journey. It is not an end location but a journey and a process.

Reconciliation is not easy. It requires many difficult conversations and reflections by individuals, organizations, groups, religious entities, and, indeed, government. As Conservatives, we believe that any group or institution that had a significant role in the residential school system should apologize and help ensure that Canada moves toward reconciliation. Many have already done so. This part of the motion stems from call to action 58 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which reads:

We call upon the Pope to issue an apology to Survivors, their families, and communities for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children in Catholic-run residential schools. We call for that apology to be similar to the 2010 apology issued to Irish victims of abuse and to occur within one year of the issuing of this Report and to be delivered by the Pope in Canada.

The second part of the motion calls on the Catholic Church to respect its “moral obligation and the spirit of the 2006 Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and resume best efforts to raise the full amount of the agreed upon funds”. Under that agreement, $25 million would be provided for programs to aid in the healing of survivors. As has been mentioned earlier and has been well reported in The Globe and Mail, a miscommunication between a federal government lawyer and counsel for the Catholic Church led to the church believing that it could walk away from this commitment. This is a profoundly unfortunate error. While the Church may not have a legal obligation, I believe we can all agree that there is no question that there is an urgent moral obligation. Certainly money alone will not heal the pain. Money and an apology will not fix all the problems, but it is an important acknowledgement.

Indeed, last year, our colleagues on the indigenous and northern affairs committee completed a difficult study on the suicide and mental health crisis that far too many indigenous communities are facing. Many witnesses spoke of the intergenerational trauma that has overwhelmed the limited services available.

The report, at page 29, states:

Substance use and mental illness were identified by witnesses as factors which contribute to mental health issues and suicide, affecting youth and their parents. Some discussed substance use as a means to cope with unresolved trauma due to residential school, experiences of abuse or violence, or to forget about difficult living conditions such [as] poor housing or hunger.

This funding and these resources are still needed.

The third point talks about “a consistent and sustained effort to turn over relevant documents when called upon by survivors of residential schools, their families, and scholars”. Again, we believe that these documents will help survivors, their families, and researchers find answers to long unanswered questions. If it helps in some way to find closure, if it helps in some way with reconciliation, if it helps in some way with healing, we believe that this should be done.

I am pleased to speak in favour of this motion today. I am pleased to vote in favour of this motion. I hope that it will, in some way, help to further reconciliation with Canada's indigenous communities.